posted November 21, 2009 10:13 AM         

(20 easy & short questions)

post your results, maybe your chart too if you wouldn't mind!

posted November 21, 2009 06:10 PM         

I've read Mach, btw, and I DO agree with him. If you want to get ahead in this world (as defined by the mainstream as "getting ahead," but I personally define "getting ahead" very differently), that is the way you act. Good guys don't get to be rulers, at least not for very long. Aside that most good people have no taste for authority, the few who do simply aren't able to lie to the People the way the People want to be lied to AND are typically unprepared for the dirty tricks their rivals will pull on them (and those corrupt will often band together against a true do gooder since that person would be a potential threat to all of them). Granted, exceptions exist, but there are always exceptions, and even they often prove the rule (one of my favorites was listening to Jimmy Carter reading from his book, and decades after the fact, he still sounded baffled that "God let" one of his early opponents who used slimeball tactics while he remained true & honorable win over him!)

But like Mach, I hate that it's the way that it is. Actually, the difference between Mach and plenty of anarchist idealists is that Mach didn't think the game could ever be changed, whereas ideological anarchists hope that it can be. But both Mach AND anarchist idealists hate how governments & those kissing up to them currently operate, and have for much of recorded history. He himself endured a lot of government evil, and I believe he was in exile after having been tortured when he wrote his advice to "the prince" (IIRC). The man knew what he was talking about, both from study & harsh experience.

posted November 21, 2009 06:31 PM         

users in general.

but then there is the league of predators who go out their way to do it to Everyone they come into contact with.

what works have you read of his Dervish, The Prince? others?

i still need to read your responses to my other thread, bare with me on those, you wrote more than i expected lol

take care all.

posted November 21, 2009 06:51 PM         

Oh, and...

quote:

---

you wrote more than i expected

---

posted November 21, 2009 07:01 PM         

ah.. if i was equally acquainted with as much as you make out, then i'm probably a person who would love to chat about it with you!

i may have to ask you nicely to recommend me some books some time too lol

yeh, you weren't kidding! but, i was impressed in a good way as opposed to alot of the posts in that topic.

even if i don't 'agree' with what you have written, atleast you really put some effort in to say something, i have got something to really read! i thank you for that.

take care!

posted November 21, 2009 11:26 PM         

quote:

---

True low Machs, however, can be kind of dependent, submissive and socially inept.

---

I can be socially inept, at times, but I'm not submissive, and don't like being dependent on anyone... a couple of years ago, my number would have been a little higher.

I'll edit in a link to my chart, when I can get Photobucket to load in.

*edit: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v254/teaselbaby/charts/mychart2.gif

posted November 23, 2009 11:53 AM         

"high Mach", you endorse Machiavelli's opinions.

Which is why I'm unambitious. I do, however, think people are basically good, and then the ambition and greed seeps in.

posted November 23, 2009 03:02 PM         

Your Machiavelli score is: 58

"low Mach", you reject Machiavelli's opinions.

posted November 25, 2009 09:10 AM         

"high Mach", you endorse Machiavelli's opinions.

Most people fall somewhere in the middle, but there's a significant minority at either extreme.

I am a fan of rational egoism.

posted November 25, 2009 09:44 AM         

Whoopsie.

posted November 30, 2009 02:10 AM         

I didn't like some of the "honesty" questions and there were a couple of other questions that were much too broad.

Like - "Honesty is the best policy in all cases." or "There is no excuse for lying"

Naturally I disagree. If a serial killer stops you and asks you where his next victim is (you are aware that he is a murderer and trying to kill said victim and also aware of the victim's whereabouts).. is it the best policy to honestly tell him?
Protecting the victim would be a pretty good excuse.

Or "It is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest"

Again with the honesty. "Honesty" per se doesn't mean much to me (but perhaps this is my Pisces Mercury bias lol) - what if the important dishonest person is dishonestly manipulating rich companies to help people dying of starvation? (Robin Hood style lol)

And then all the stuff about "living moral lives" + "most people are basically kind" + "it is possible to be good in all respects" +"all people have a vicious streak if pushed against a wall" - or something along those lines.. Yes doh all people can have a vicious streak. If you were stuck on a deserted island with no food for 3 days - I think you'd be surprised as to the things you would do for food. Anyway different people have different thresholds.

Plus - how do you define good or moral? It's extremely difficult to define those concepts. They mean different things to different people. There are some moral standards set by the law and society - but judging by social standards, I'd say most people fall under the mark at one point or another.

Ultimately, I think most people have both positive and negative character traits which are subject to constant change in the eye of different beholders or "judges". One person's rubbish is someone else's treasure. I don't believe anyone is all good or all bad and I don't generally like dichotomies like good-bad.. black-white.. etc